I don’t know enough about military matters to know whether such an attack would fail. I am pretty confident in the expertise of the military leadership in Israel, however. As far as Israel’s popularity in Iran goes, I wouldn’t worry about that too much.
In my opinion, Israel will make a run at destroying the nuclear facilities in Iran before May 2012.
The ramp up in rhetoric in the USA among right-wing pundits notwithstanding, Israel has always had a very clear objective in mind and the ability to project force well beyond its borders and the will to do so. I don’t think it would end up in a war.
Look at a map of the region.
Do you see that big country immediately to the west of Iran?
I believe it doesn’t have much of an air force any longer, but a direct land war against Israel would require invading Iraq. That would most probably lead to a general Mideast war.
The USA would almost certainly return to defend the Iraqis in that circumstance.
At the very least, Iran could expect cruise missile reprisals that would devastate their country.
Syria is in a state of civil unrest. Lebanon is still rebuilding. Those two countries might want to attack Israel, but they lack the ability to do so effectively.
So, Israel may well feel not only justified but relatively safe sending air strikes to Iran.
I have no idea what your point is here. It would suck to be an Iranian citizen who gets in the way of an Israeli attack on Iran. So what?
Again, I have no idea what your point is here. Iran has expressed a desire to destroy Israel. Iran is on the path to developing nuclear weapons. It is rational for Israel to try to stop Iran.
Of COURSE it matters little to you. You won’t be effected (or, I suppose more precisely, you THINK you won’t be effected) if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, not living in Israel and all. And it’s unsurprising that you, in the same breath, think that Iran is not only justified in pursuing nukes (for defensive purposes only, of course), but that the leaders would be ‘irresponsible’ if they didn’t. 
So, your thinking is that you think it’s a good idea for a country to TRY and piss off the US and acquire nuclear weapons, despite having signed treaties stating they would do no such thing? And, according to your logic of the US being the Mad Dog of the Planet, with a hair trigger and a Dirty Harry gleam in their eye ready to gun down any punk who thinks we might have fired 6 bullets instead of 5, that this is a reasonable strategy for Iran to continue to push? Leaving aside the fact that it’s not JUST the US (or Israel) who is nervous about Iran getting nukes and based solely on YOUR logic, how does that work out exactly? I mean, if we ARE the Mad Dog of the Planet, then isn’t it really fucking stupid for them to be doing stuff like this and giving us an excuse to attack them? Or, perhaps you figure that they could trick us and get away with it? But how does THAT work? I mean, we are The Mad Dog, right? So, shouldn’t we have already bombed the crap out of them, by your logic?
Yeah, how’s that working out? Leaving aside the fact that what ‘saved’ NK is the fact that they had the old USSR and now China as an ally, and the fact that they attacked SK, not the other way around…but don’t want to dip too far into reality here, so figured I’d go with the simple question.
Or, perhaps Iran could, you know, stop fucking trying to develop nukes? This wild bullshit of the US ever poised to attack Iran unless they get nukes is, well, complete horseshit. The eagle eyed observer would note that, despite not having any anti-tiger protection, the incidence of tiger attacks in Iran is pretty fucking low. Even if the US WAS a Mad Dog nation, China AND Russia are nominal allies of Iran, and would take it more than a bit personally if the US just decided next Tuesday to invade Iran…ESPECIALLY if they fucking stop trying to dick around and develop nuclear weapons and they promised to do when they signed the NNPT. They could, you know, just simply honor the treaty, throw open their nuclear ‘energy’ programs to full UN inspection and cut the lets right out from under the imminent US all out offensive. Why is that not one of your options? Curious, no?
So, war or Iran gets nukes are the only options. Man…you are seriously blood thirsty. I vote for Iran to stop acting like assholes and give up trying to get nukes, stop supporting terrorist organizations and joining the community of nations and stepping up to fulfill their role as region power by hanging every foaming at the mouth cleric and holding full and open democratic elections. How about that?
-XT
If Israel thinks they need to attack Iran, and they really think Iran is an existential threat, nothing the US says is going to stop them.
So it’d be great for those citizen’s views to be on even terms? I know, hard to process.
The Ahmadinejad quote has been distorted to hell and used to this day as an implausible war-cry. So please, let’s stop using all excuses for war revolving on that particular issue.
XT, tocayo, how are you? Trust all is well.
Not much to say to you other than that. Claim all the victories you’d like.
Disagree. No way Israel goes ahead without an specific US nod. Which is the whole topic of the debate.
I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.
No need to go as far as Ahmedinijad:
From November 1982:
Anyway you slice it, Iran is extremely hostile towards Israel and has been for some time now.
And here’s another quote from just today – 30 years later:
I’m not so sure about that. The Obama admin has certainly expressed the quasi-strongly worded “nothing is off the table” WRT Iran several times, but…militarily engaging Iran is going to be pretty unpopular I think, in light of our recovery from recent conflicts that have met with, lets say…mixed results. Our economy is in recovery, the Afghan and Iraqi wars have cost a a fortune in blood and treasure…not sure we want to tread down that path again right now.
I am certain that the USA could militarily wipe the proverbial floor with the Iranians military…I’m equally as certain that it shouldn’t do it. Iraq turned into a nightmare during the occupation as the US was unprepared for the types of conflicts that followed the larger, easier to conduct full-scale military operations that a nation like the USA excels at. Not to mention the strain on our forces and their families.
I generally dislike the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons…I’m just not sure what the best solution is. I think we should just continue to apply as much diplomatic and economic pressure as we (and the many Western nations that agree with trying to deny Iran the bomb) can in the hopes that the hardline regime succumbs to pressure and cancels its program. I doubt very much that happens though.
Depending on the good will of others for your existential protection is not a sound national policy. International good will also often comes with strings attached for some reason.
For that matter, Saddam’s Iraq had much stronger ties with Russia than Iran does today. Fat lot of help *they *got.
As I recall, letting UN inspectors in with free reign (after much dragging of feet) didn’t do Iraq much good.
IOW, “shut up and act like we tell you to and you won’t have any problems” ? Yeah, I have no love for Iran’s government or the kind of people it supports, but I can see how that kind of attitude would cheese them ever so slightly off.
As for the NNPT, it does include a slightly inconvenient pledge from signatories to pursue their own disarmament in earnest with total eradication as an end goal. You done any of that ? We (France) sure didn’t - I mean, we get rid of rusty old crap once in a while for feel-good headlines (and maintenance savings) but at the same time develop new and improved ones (new ICBMs, new SSBNs, new nuke tipped ASMs, new types of warheads, the whole shebang) which explicitly runs against the express purpose of the treaty. Don’t y’all do just the same ?
So, given that we quite ostensibly wipe our asses with it, why should we expect other signatories not to ?
We don’t need an excuse, we are perfectly willing to simply make one up. And we haven’t attacked them recently because we got ourselves bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please; we backed Iraq against Iran in a war that cost the Iranians a million people. You can say “that doesn’t count” if you like, but you can’t make the Iranians agree with you.
Because it’s pointless.
We’d still be their enemy. The only acceptable Iran in America’s eyes is a dictatorship ruled by a US puppet; the present government exists in part because America was unwilling to tolerate democracy in Iran. And Iraq tried most of that and they got the conquest & slaughter treatment anyway.
Not here to do your thinking for you. Sorry, but that is as plain as I can make it.
Whereas Israel has always been peaches and cream:
FGIE,
Out for now – don’t agree with your entirely. Will expound at a later moment.
Good night.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
Depending on the good will of others for your existential protection is not a sound national policy. International good will also often comes with strings attached for some reason.
[/QUOTE]
Two things. They probably shouldn’t have signed the NNPT if they felt that the only way to survive as a rogue nation was to have the nuclear option. Also, ALL small nations rely for their existential protection on the good will of others, in the end. What nuclear anti-tiger protection does New Zealand have…or the Congo?
Saddam would have still been in power if he had done what I am suggesting Iran do, which is full transparency. Der Trihs doesn’t believe that, to be sure, but logically it’s a no brainer. What allowed the US to attack Iraq was a pretty narrow set of events and parameters, but at it’s root it was the big question marks about what Saddam did or didn’t have wrt WMD…and those questions would have been answered if Saddam had, early on, thrown his country open to UN inspectors to ask any question and get any answer they wanted.
Sadly, Iraq never did let them have free reign, and even the limited access they DID give was a bit late in the game. Had they been doing this all along there would have been zero pretense for the US invasion. Perhaps Iran should take THAT lesson to heart, while there is still time to open up to UN inspection and derail not only Mad Dog USAUSAUSA from attacking, but more probably, an Israeli surgical strike because THEY think Iran is threatening their existence by trying to build nukes.
So, IOW, it’s cool to act like a total nutball rogue state? They don’t have to bend over and take it up the ass, they merely have to stop supporting terrorist groups and stop trying to build nukes. Why is this unreasonable?? 
I would say that the US has decommissioned more nukes than France ever had, so I guess the answer is ‘yes’. I don’t recall the NNPT saying that nuclear signatories had to disarm though…do you have a cite for that?
Fact is, however, that Iran DID sign and pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons. No matter how one waves ones hands, that is still the bottom line. I believe (could be wrong here) that they COULD simply revoke the treaty, or formally state that they won’t honor it anymore, but they are taking the rogue route and trying to develop the things in secret.
-XT
No way the President says no in a re-election year.
I am certainly not saying that Israel bears no guilt for…well, anything regarding its Arab neighbors, particularly the prickly ones like Iran. I am reasonably certain that Mossad and Israel are behind the assassinations of the Iranian nuclear scientists…Israel is very skilled at assassinations.
That said, Israel seems to me to be a country that wouldn’t ratchet up conflicts if it were just left the fuck alone…something its neighboring countries refuse to do. I am trying to think of an example where Israel launched a military campaign of any kind where it wasn’t either directly attacked or where it felt threatened.
Again, so what? Even if one assumes that Israel is hell-bent on destroying Iran, your point does not follow.
It’s your job to make your point reasonably coherent. Which you have not done.
In that case, our discussion is concluded.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
We don’t need an excuse, we are perfectly willing to simply make one up. And we haven’t attacked them recently because we got ourselves bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[/QUOTE]
I know you don’t see how ridiculous such statements are, but seriously…they are pretty funny. First off, we didn’t attack them BEFORE we were engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan either, despite the unquestioned enmity between our two nations. Secondly, if you think we are fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and don’t have a single bomber or cruise missile to spare for a Clinton-eque type attack then you are sadly underestimating the US’s military. We could pretty easily toss a couple of Tomahawks their way, if we REALLY wanted to attack them and their nuclear program, not to mention fly a couple of B-2’s with bunker busters…or, since we are such monsters, toss a few nukes their way. I’m sure that somewhere, in all of the US’s military strength, we have one spare Tomahawk, B-2 or nuclear tipped missile to spare for Iran if we really, REALLY want to hit them.
Please yourself. We certainly backed (somewhat) Iraq against Iran because of the old ‘enemy of my enemy’ thingy. But WE didn’t attack anyone, merely gave Saddam some (fairly trifling, relatively speaking) assistance. Again, the keen eyed observer will note that Saddam’s military was almost entirely equipped with RUSSIAN equipment, not M-60 tanks and M-16 rifles (though, ironically, Iran DID fight with quite a lot of US equipment in that war). We didn’t force or coerce Iraq into attacking Iran…they did it on their own, and for their own reasons.
Yes, I can see why avoiding a war is definitely pointless, while pushing a major superpower AND many of the most powerful nations on earth into such a war achieves all of the greatest goals! Definitely.
We might still be their enemy (I doubt it, but I concede there is no convincing you on this or any other thing in this thread on this subject), but WE WOULDN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. According to you we’ve been their enemy since the revolution (or before), yet we haven’t attacked them directly in all that time, despite the lack of anti-tiger repellants. Yeah, our military, stretched to the last cruise missile, ship, bomber and private has been busy with all it can handle in Iraq and Afghanistan NOW (though we are out of Iraq for the most part now and still no attack…sure it’s coming any day though…any day now…), but we weren’t before…yet no attack.
-XT
The tiger isn’t looking at New Zealand. Iran is on America’s “hit list,” (whether justified or not) and the only absolutely sure way Iran can both resist American influence and prevent an American invasion is nukes. Can you think of another way? America has made it clear that Iran needs to submit to our demands, or else.
So Iran’s options are “surrender completely without fighting (like Sadaam should have done) or get invaded and have your government violently overthrown.” Surely you can see that asking Iran to have a completely transparent government is unreasonable. Would you agree to let Iranian inspectors full access to American government secrets? Hell no, and rightly so!
There was no evidence for an active WMD program in Iraq, and the Bush administration knew it.
Keep in mind there’s good evidence that the “inspectors” sent to Iraq were spying. The inspection agency UNSCOM charged with overseeing Iraq’s WMD disarmament noted with a high level of confidence that Iraq was not stockpiling or developing WMDs. UNSCOM was withdrawn from Iraq at the orders of the US government, not due to Iraqi lack of cooperation. The chief weapons inspector Hans Blix stated in January 2003 “access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect.”
Anyone who refuted the Bush admin’s assertion that Iraq was developing WMD was punished and silenced. Remember Valerie Plame? There was no reason to invade Iraq, and zero legitimate pretense. The only reason it was even possible is because Americans were wrapped up in emotion over 9-11, and therefore less scrutinizing of our own government.
Iran has taken a lesson to heart. The lesson is “America is unpredictable, and we cannot hope to compete in a military struggle.” America can and probably will dismantle the Iranian government on a whim. But not if Iran has nukes. A nuclear armed Iran is America’s fault, and we can’t solve it with more threats and more military power.
They are only a “rogue” state from the perspective of their adversaries. From their perspective, getting nukes makes perfect sense.
Saddam was not building nukes, and not supporting terrorist groups. Wasn’t enough for him, was it?
What “Triangle of Evil fiasco” are you referring to? I really hope you weren’t referring to the “Axis of Evil” speech because if so, that’s a pretty huge error that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in your knowledge, understanding of, or ability to analyze the US government’s attitude towards Iran.
Certainly, were my mother reading one of her students book reports on Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and they kept referring to “turnspeak” instead of “newspeak” that would probably lead her to conclude that person hadn’t read the book very well.
I’m sorry, but this quote shows very little understanding of the Iranian government.
It’s irrelevant what Ahmadinejad said. He’s only Iran’s President and he has no control over Iran’s military and if Iran gets nukes he won’t have control over them.
The President’s powers in Iran are quite limited and outside of domestic issues he’s more of a figurehead.
By contrast, the Ayatollah Khameinei has control over Iran’s military and would have control over its nukes if they got them, though using them would violate his own fatwa.
Now personally I doubt he’d use them but he has declared Israel to be a “cancerous tumor that needs to be removed” so it’s certainly understandable that the Israelis are a bit frightened.